Saturday's Letters to the Editor

Not so clean

EDITOR: One pillar of Sonoma Clean Power is a 50-megawatt biomass plant that would burn wood to generate electricity. Carbon dioxide from wood is deemed to be "clean" while carbon dioxide from natural gas (ancient biomass) is "dirty." This distinction baffles those trained in chemistry or physics.

The biomass plant would burn 350,000 tons of wood annually, requiring 17,500 truckloads per year (48 per day, 365 days per year) driving perhaps 100 mile round-trips. The carbon dioxide emissions from heavy duty trucks and the equipment needed to load the wood is supposedly "clean."

Trucks of this size cause 1,000 times more wear and tear on our roads than SUVs. Our crumbling road system would be clogged with trucks and would further deteriorate to third world conditions.

Many proponents of Sonoma Clean Power would likely be among the most vocal objectors to building a biomass project, lending credence to Barnum & Bailey's belief that a sucker is born every minute. Without a biomass plant, many of the promised "green" jobs driving trucks would disappear.

For my home, I wish "community choice" included the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, whose rates are 30 percent below either PG&E or what Sonoma Clean Power is proposing.


Santa Rosa

Santa Rosa's vote

EDITOR: I commend Mayor Scott Bartley for his decision to schedule a vote by the Santa Rosa City Council on Sonoma Clean Power for July 9 ("Power agency deadline extended," Saturday). I hope that on June 25 the Clean Power joint powers authority gives serious consideration to the adjustments in the governing processes that are being requested by cities.

© The Press Democrat |  Terms of Service |  Privacy Policy |  Jobs With Us |  RSS |  Advertising |  Sonoma Media Investments |  Place an Ad
Switch to our Mobile View